Wednesday, March 11, 2015



For me context is the key - from that comes the understanding of everything.
(Kenneth Noland)


This is my first answer to the 3 comments published yesterday in the Russian Journal of Unconventional Science- please see the comments in my issue of yesterday.

A- to Profs. Adamenko, Novikov and Bolotov

Dear Sirs, 
I am sorry to not be well informed regarding your scientific ideas about LENR- but this will be fixed. The remarkable keywords of your comment are (for me, due to my LENR thinking:  collective nuclear, dynamic!, multiscale ssytems. I think all these are components of the LENR reality and also of the LENR value- as energy source.
About myself- if you do not read Ego Out:
- The formation of my early vison bout -then Cold Fusion- was much influenced by a Russian Book:  
V.M. Gryaznov, N.B. Orekhova: "Kataliz blagorodnymi metallami, dinamicheskie osobennosti"
Moskva, Nauka, 1989. 

Prof Gryaznov (R.I.P!) hsd s most creative vision of what catalysis is, so his ideas could be applird to cold fusion too. See please:

Gluck, P., Understanding Reproducibility: Topology Is The Key. Fusion Facts, 1992. 3(11).

Gluck, P., The surfdyne concept: an attempt to solve (or to rename) the puzzles of cold nuclear fusion. Fusion Technol., 1993. 24: p. 122.

Gluck, P., Why Technology First; Infinite Energy 1st issue, March-April 1995, p 26-9

Around 1995 my first basic ideas- I do not dare to call them theoretical, just philosophical-engineering principles were already established, but my publication had no impact and no success:
a) the excess heat generation reactions take place in active sites on the surface of cathodes and are catalytic; catalysis will inspire the technological solution for an energy source;
b) The main factor influence the activity of the reactions is the dynamics of the surface of the metal;
c)the entire problem will be resolved first technologically and only later scientifically i.e. theoretically 
d) there is a sequence of multiple phenomena and CF/LENR is nuclear only in part.
These ideas and the events- or no-events (in less than two weeks it will be the 26th anniversary of CF and no solution) have pushed my thinking further toward eve  more blasphemous principle, see an example here:

 I am a LENR heretic perhaps but open to good ideas, please send me your papers.

B- to Prof. Yu.L. Ratis

Sir, you are right that Parkhomov's achievement is specially valuable, has be known, developed and replicated, developed and helped. In the same time Parkhomov has his inherent limitations and obligations. He MUST use LiAlH4 first because we are told this was used at Lugano.
You are a known theorist (neutrino catalyst sounds well?) This time Alexander had to focus 200% on the experimental part, awfully difficult. Let's hope together he will be able to build Survivor Reactors.

C- to Leader of the Russian LENR movement, Nikolay Samsonenko. I had the honor to meeet hin in 1994 at Minsk, the International CF Meeting organized by Harold Fox. See about him here:
Knowing what a great thinker he is, I was afraid that I will have to agree to anything  he says- and then what can I comment? Thanks to Athena, Goddess of Bloggers it is not the case, in many issues I have different opinions.. 

Nikolay judges the Parkhomov breakthrough, achievement, Gordian Knots cutting, creative problem solving issue in the general context of CF/LENR. The almost definitory illness of this great field is weak reproducibility and this (also manifested as weak effects, sometimes immeasurable), impossibility to scale up and short active life- suggesting this is a problem to be solved in this case too (Do I understand it correctly?).
Actually the real context for the Parkhomov experiments is much more restricted and is specific- it is a very high temperature (>1100 C) - the realm of Rossi's Hot Cats and of the Lugano experiment. Here was a problem due to the too complex calorimetry used at Lugano
and Parkhomov has found a bright solution.

It seems - cold  fusion or not cold fusion- it exist a critical temperature under which no reproducible results and/or no usable heat  release intensities can be obtained. Thus the 
wet PdD cell is sentenced ab ovo (really) - No technological future for you! Piantellis' cells working around 400 C have generated excess power, tens of Watts for months. As the examples of Rossi and Defkalion show, there exists an other possibility; you have divided the people in optimists and pessimist, I think (and have published a lot about it) that the field per se cn be divided in what I call LENR (static and weak) and LENR + (dynamic and intense). It is not a popular idea till now. Rossi takes care to not deliver certainties, in order to stop the competition.. Parkhomov has opened a gate of possibilities- if the technical problems of the rectors are solved. IF it can be proved that for the basic recipe, Ni plus LiAlH4 the ONLY condition for starting the excess heat process is to heat over a critical temperature around 1050-1100 C, and the process continues for days- then LENR+ is demonstrated.
It seems that for lower temperatures beyond temperature some additives are also necessary, or as by Defkalion some spark discharges.
The general LENR context does not more exist in my opinion. The lENR field is much more diversified to be considered unitary. The Pd D and the NiH lines rare essentially different (correct, according to Piantelli, is to speak about "transition metals- light hydrogen" systems, NiH is just a lucky harbinger of a new era.
I had many disputes, never settled with many colleagues and friends, the most intense with Edmund Storms who thinks it is actually a single LENR and an unique principle common for all forms; I think it is an irreconcilable diversity and heterogeneity of the sytems. I think there are already more effects, not the Effect in diverse places. The Parkhomov experiment, and especially the wireless reactor (immersed in hot molten metal) can show who was right.

An other out-of-context for Parkhomov - just now due to technical problems he is like a fast runner at 110m hurdles, it is not easy for him to become a marathon runner.
Dear Nikolay, the part regarding theory is fine, much work, as far I know Parkhomov also contributed. Theory and Experiment in LENR is a great question.
My conclusion to is- Parkhomov must be helped to make serial perfectly successful experiments
including those of long duration- my guess was 64, double as at Lugano.

Blog de Jean Paul Biberian

LENRG publishes a Manifesto

How to increase the efficiency of Hot Cold Fusion
by V.A. Shashlov
Quite interesting at first sight; long...


One step closer to artificial photosynthesis and 'solar fuels

Understanding nanotechnology - why a material's behavior changes as it gets smaller

Expect the unexpected
Renren Deng

Specialization is a Journey, Not a Destination:

No comments:

Post a Comment